溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 「大家姐」3子女轉校.家長施壓校方周一作出回應 [打印本頁]

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2009-4-21 07:55 標題: 「大家姐」3子女轉校.家長施壓校方周一作出回應

「大家姐」3子女轉校.家長施壓校方周一作出回應

[2009-04-21]

本報記者周文琳、崔源明報道

自「大家姐」甄彤施被殺後，她三個子女就讀溫市西區一私校的家長就憂心忡忡，擔心在校子女的安全。而西格雷岬學校（West Point Grey Academy）校長周一終於作出回應，在寫給家長的便條中表示，甄的子女將會轉往其他學校，而校方將會對他們轉往新校給予支援。據《省報》報道，西格雷岬學校校長奧斯汀（Clive Austin）表示，校方已經為學生安排顧問，加強保安，並將與家長會晤，討論有關該校學生家長涉及罪案的問題。
奧斯汀並在周一下午發出聲明說：「對於學校社群的安全及保安十分重視，特此回應部分家長關注，正檢討現行所有政策及程序，會參考各可行方案的意見，以及依循律師的指示。」聲明又強調，會繼續保障所有學生福祉。
而對於本報求證甄彤施3子女是否因母喪而休學或遭勒令退學，校方以電郵回應道：「現在只能提供（上述）聲明的資料，祈為見諒。」
甄曾染金髮家長印象深
一位不願公開身分的華裔家長周一對本報說，她的長女在該校讀第12班，次子讀第10班，從小學開始就在該校讀書。她記得去年夏天學期結束前，曾見過甄彤施：「由於甄染了金髮，與其他家長打扮有別，印象特別深。」
這位家長強調，學校家長絕大部分屬專業人士，家庭背景清白；很多家長都很擔心——如果容許危險人物的子女在學校，萬一出事時，其他學生和家長的安全將沒有保障。
但這位家長更強調：「這不是歧視。既然是私立學校，當然有權選擇學生，家庭背景清白對學校及家長都十分重要。這也不是落井下石，而是基於大眾安全利益著想。」
家長：轉校是基於大眾安全
她認為，最令他們一班家長關注的是，這已經是第二個有特別背景的家長遭槍殺，而且不能保證仍然有同類背景複雜的家長有子女就讀該校。因此，作為負責任的家長，提出關注是理所當然的。她希望校方至少在現階段，應該盡快安排甄彤施3子女轉校，至少讓其他家長放心些。
自從甄彤施遭槍殺後，校方就不停地收到家長的電話或電郵，對子女的安全表達關注。

家長：轉校是基於大眾安全
她認為，最令他們一班家長關注的是，這已經是第二個有特別背景的家長遭槍殺，而且不能保證仍然有同類背景複雜的家長有子女就讀該校。因此，作為負責任的家長，提出關注是理所當然的。
她希望校方至少在現階段，應該盡快安排甄彤施3子女轉校，至少讓其他家長放心些。

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2009-4-21 07:56

this really ticks me off

作者: siumaibb 時間: 2009-4-21 08:49

「這不是歧視。既然是私立學校，當然有權選擇學生，家庭背景清白對學校及家長都十分重要。這也不是落井下石，而是基於大眾安全利益著想。」
「轉校是基於大眾安全」

講得幾好聽，不過人係自私，如果我係家長，話唔定我都會咁講

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-4-21 09:30

大眾安全? Who's gonna kill those kids? If so, they could have been killed long time ago already, no need to wait until now.
I think the headmaster is worrying for no one to pay their school fees.

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2009-4-21 09:35

where did the woman died?
NOT in the school area!!!
just another typical stereotype

作者: kingsway 時間: 2009-4-21 10:34

In fact their kids should be safer coz the Big sister won't allow any gang power to enter the school field if she were alive.

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-4-21 11:09

I support the school. They don't have to take this risk since they're not public school.

If any shooting happened in that school or any kind of gang act, the school's reputation is over.

作者: katamari 時間: 2009-4-21 11:20

Reputation係私校最大資產。呢個時候梗係越少人犧牲越好，唔通想趕客咩。響冇法子兩全其美之下，趕走三個好過嚇走大半嘛！

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2009-4-21 11:50

when I saw the title, i thought it is 大C姐

作者: B仔 時間: 2009-4-21 12:01

when I saw the title, i thought it is 大C姐
rainbow-davie 發表於 2009-4-21 12:50

你就衰D，我從來冇咒大C姐死，仲要係被殺。。。

作者: RayRay 時間: 2009-4-21 18:34

Too bad for the kids.

作者: raima 時間: 2009-4-21 22:21

i feel bad for the kids. they did nothing wrong and probably don't have a clue. and other kids will probably make fun of them too...

作者: tapioca 時間: 2009-4-21 23:32

I wonder any other schools are going to take the kids? I feel bad for her kids but the parents of other schools will complain too if the schools take them, and other schools also concern about the safety of thier students as well.

作者: katamari 時間: 2009-4-21 23:54

the kids were so innocent.

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-4-23 08:49

You never know what connections those accountants and laywers have?

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-4-23 09:15

True, they are a private school and thus have the right to select their own students. But once the kids have been admitted, on what grounds does WPG have to expel them unless the kids have done something wrong at the school themselves?

Taken to a slightly higher level, the equivalent thing would be for an immigrant who has attained citizenship status, only to have his citizenship revoked because his wife is known to be involved with criminal activity. Unless the ex-citizen has committed some kind of treasonous act, how can his citizenship be revoked?!

HUGE thumbsdown to West Point Gray!

-Lik

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-4-23 11:16

It's simply different.
A private school concerns criminal background of their students themselves as well as their parents/families, it's more like a reputation thing rather than a concern of those kids would commit crime at school; a country will very likely refuse immigrants applications if they already have a criminal record, but what's wrong for the descendants of criminals if they themselves have commit no crime at all, will they be kicked out from the country?

Similar concern may apply to, an employer may fire an employee once he/she realizes that the employee's family has serious criminal background, even not the employee himself/herself.
It's not a true or false judgment, but the situation is fairly understandable.

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-4-23 11:51

Lemme ask this again: what have the kids done?

If the kids have done something wrong, fine, kick them out. But as far as we can tell right now, the kids have done absolutely nothing that makes them deserve the expulsion. Of course, the principal would at least be smart enough so that officially, the kids are simply "voluntarily transferring" to another school. But any semi-intelligent person will know that the kids have most likely been pressured to leave.

It just boils down to baseless discrimination and unjust bias, plain and simple.

-Lik

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-4-23 12:12

本帖最後由 shutterbug 於 2009-4-23 13:13 編輯

You think it's unfair to the kids? May be. The kids may have done nothing but there's a risk tied to these kids that the school cannot ignore. If things did happen to them or other students, who will take the blame/responsibility? Their mom caused all this. The other students could say it's unfair that they need to take this risk. There's no win-win solution. I think the school is just choosing the lesser of the two evils.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-4-23 13:59

Why people have criminal records can't be immigrant?
Why people have criminal records can't be cops?
Oh I see, it's all baseless discrimination and unjust bias?

You did nothing wrongful, but your father or mother is a well known criminal, and so you are not welcome in a private school. Is it really difficult for you to understand?

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-4-23 14:13

Ultraman,

Of course I understand, and I'd dare say that I understand it better than you do because I see the injustice of it while you don't.

The difference between the kids here and the examples you listed are the kids were already studying at WPG. They were in the system already, and thus it becomes unfair to expel them when they have done no wrongs themselves.

On the other hand, an immigration applicant has yet to be accepted into the country. A police applicant has yet to be accepted into the academy. That is where the difference lie.

To kick the kids out when they have already been accepted while they have done nothing wrong means the school is exercising double standards.

-Lik

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-4-23 14:44

Correct me if I were wrong.
Bacon Bros are the most wanted criminals,
their father is a teacher or profession in education in the interior.
He is suspened from his job also.
Why?

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-4-23 16:03

Because you claimed you know better. OK, let me ask you:
A current cop's family member just committed a crime recently, would that cop be fired?
Since he/she is already being a cop but not under the procedure of application, any of his/her family member's behavior won't affect him/her at all?

Of course I'm not going to argue with you in a childish way, and never did. The "nature" of this comparison is never been the same. However, the concept is: the government concerns about the public safety and there would be conflicts between the cop (in the example above) and his/her criminal family member(s); the private school concerns about their school reputation, no matter the student is only under application or already in the period of studying.

As I said, this is very understandable, not to comment right or wrong.

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-4-23 23:01

A current cop's family member just committed a crime recently, would that cop be fired?
Since he/she is already being a cop but not under the procedure of application, any of his/her family member's behavior won't affect him/her at all?
Ultraman 發表於 2009-4-23 16:03

Your argument here is flawed because it amounts to saying that a mere highschool student should be held to the same high moral standards the general public expects in law enforcement officers. Of course, cops do not always possess the high moral standards that the general public expects of them, but the expectation is there. To apply this high a level of moral standard on highschool kids is absurd.

And, if it is ok for the WPG to expel the children like this, does it mean it is also ok for another private school to do the same thing? Is it also ok then for public school to discriminate against these children and not admit them on the grounds that their mother is involved with criminal activity?

Ideally, civil society does not function on double standards. Unfortunately, it always does so in practice. Your views here are precisely the reasons why this happens.

-Lik

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-4-24 00:59

You always like to use the word "discriminate" or "discrimination" in an abused way. That's your style, huh?!
As you said you know well, I thought you should know the authority and stands for a private school are different from a government one. The case happens in a private school might not be the same situation in a government school. And it is not always related to your favorite term/fact discrimination.

作者: Austin 時間: 2009-4-24 02:55

Because you claimed you know better. OK, let me ask you:
A current cop's family member just committed a crime recently, would that cop be fired?
Since he/she is already being a cop but not under the p ...
Ultraman 發表於 2009-4-23 17:03

I'm not sure what answer you are looking for, but I believe that would depends on the situation. I'm sure if the family member was involved in organized crime, the cop would be investigated. But if not, then it would be wrongful dismissal if he gets fired.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/)